Poll-itcs: The very risky business of numbers that are polls apart

By GottaLaff

One reason so many politicians claim that they don't live and die by poll numbers (other than trying to sound as if they're above the fray) may be that they are so inaccurate and misleading.

This op-ed piece does a good job of illustrating just how inaccurate and misleading, and it's pretty disconcerting:

[P]olitical misinformation and misinterpretation can be more viral than the truth in the Internet News Age, as reporting on polls pulses through the electronic highway, launched by news organizations with little time to evaluate and sift the quality of research. In recent weeks, a series of California political surveys has produced a cacophony of often conflicting analysis, opinion and reporting that served to confuse readers and distort political perceptions.

Key words: "Distort political perceptions".

He goes on to give detailed examples of a Daily Kos poll (and others) that he says was, in a word, dead wrong:

A poll's methodology -- including the sample size, method of selection and phrasing of questions -- is crucial. [...]

[M]isreporting of polls allows campaign spinners not only to boost or suppress candidate fundraising but to manipulate news coverage, frame campaign narratives and shape public perceptions.

And what do the punditiots quote day after day, hour after hour? Poll numbers. And what do they do with those poll numbers? Make points and draw conclusions. And what do we do with those conclusions? Many of us believe them and act on them accordingly, or use them as a rallying point.

We might start a grassroots campaign, or become complacent and back off one. We might hold the numbers up to validate a point of view, or scoff at them. We might stop donating to a candidate or a cause, or pile on.

Think about that. Read the bolded red text again. Then read the specific cases below carefully. They illustrate the premise in a way that generalities can't:

The Daily Kos poll is far from an isolated incident, as misreading and misinterpretation of survey research have become endemic on the Web. Consider the following:

* A recent poll by the widely respected Public Policy Institute of California, for example, reported that 53% of registered voters now favor more oil drilling off the California coast, a finding trumpeted by supporters of the policy. But respondents were asked their view on drilling as one of several approaches "to address the country's energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources," a question likely to elicit a much different response than one about the environmental impact of drilling.

* A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reported that only 43% of those surveyed supported a "public option" for healthcare reform -- an apparently dramatic swing from its previous poll, which found 76% support for the policy. On closer examination, though, it turned out that pollsters in the first survey asked people if they wanted the "choice" of a public option. In the later poll, they omitted the key word "choice," asking simply whether respondents favored a public option. When Survey USA a short time later used the original language, 77% of respondents said they favored the public option, confirming the finding in the first NBC/WSJ survey.

* Some political analysts, citing an increase in the number and proportion of "independent" voters who decline to affiliate with a major party, have argued that California is becoming a post-partisan "purple state." But the recent release of 30 years of surveys by the Field Poll showed how wrong this analysis is. On a host of divisive issues, such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage, independents have much the same attitudes as Democrats, keeping California a very blue state.

See what I mean? These aren't new revelations, but they're laid out in a way that hits home.

Polls are an easy way to summarize a moment in time, but that temptingly easy-to-grasp shortcut should be taken with a grain of salt... especially nowadays:

As established news organizations increasingly cut costs, first-rate, independent, nonpartisan polling is becoming scarcer. So polling stories should be viewed by readers -- and voters -- with great skepticism, and news outlets should use greater care in analyzing and disseminating survey data. Reducing political views to a number does not necessarily make them scientific. Caveat emptor.

In case you need a reminder:

• Main Entry: caveat emp·tor
• Pronunciation: \-ˈem(p)-tər, -ˌtȯr\
• Function: noun
• Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware
• Date: 1523

: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk

Meghan McCain is mad at Steve Benen

By GottaLaff

I've been following MegMac's Twitter time line on this, and had a problem with the content of her Tweets, too. Steve Benen, a frequent guest on The Rachel Maddow Show, explains:

I had an item yesterday noting that Dick Cheney's remarks on gay marriage may have a role in the party's debate over gay rights. I added what seemed like a pretty uncontroversial idea -- while Meghan McCain and Steve Schmidt were other Republicans of note who've taken progressive views on the issue, Dick Cheney has far greater influence.

Apparently, this has angered Meghan McCain in some way. She's added at least four tweets complaining about my observation. In the order in which they were posted:

# Hey Washington Monthly, so it's only important to speak out for marriage equality if your an old man?

# so I guess young women should just stfu and be seen and not heard Washington Monthly....? Only Dick Cheney should speak out...?

# I wonder if the Washington Monthly thinks if all women or minorities speak out it is "almost meaningless" - apparently only Cheney matters

# I guarantee you if one of my brothers were doing what I am doing right now the Washington Monthly would think it had meaning.

This is what I wrote that prompted these tweets: "It was pretty meaningless to hear Meghan McCain urge her Republican Party to come around on gay marriage. It seemed a bit more important when Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, gave the GOP the same advice. But in terms of influence in Republican politics, Dick Cheney is on another level."

I haven't the foggiest idea why this seems so outrageous to McCain...

And he goes on to explain, ending on this note:

Based on an 18-word sentence in a blog post, Meghan McCain has concluded that I only respect old white guys, I don't respect young women, and I'm somehow hostile to minorities. I still don't really know how she came to these conclusions, but I'm pleased to report she's mistaken.

MegMac has some growing up to do, or perhaps a little more experience. If she insists on painting herself as a budding journalist, and if she demands credibility, then she needs to learn to do a little more research before making comments like these.

So much for GOP talking points: President Obama has gotten under Al Qaeda's skin

By GottaLaff

What is it the righties were saying about Barack Hussein Obama being Al Qaeda's choice for president? And who was it again, who added to their numbers? Looks like the GOP has been the party that contributed to the terrorist cause. Why do they hate America?

Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader took stock of America's new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. "A house Negro," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a "hypocrite," a "killer" of innocents, an "enemy of Muslims." He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

"He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection," an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group. [...]

[F][or now, the change in Washington appears to have rattled al-Qaeda's leaders, some of whom are scrambling to convince the faithful that Obama and Bush are essentially the same.

Paul Pillar, a former CIA counterterrorism official who lectures on national security at Georgetown University:

"For al-Qaeda, as a matter of image and tone, George W. Bush had been a near-perfect foil." [...] [A]consensus view supported Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the man most likely to continue Bush administration policies and, it was hoped, drive the United States more deeply into a prolonged guerrilla war.

Once again, the Republican party line is contradicted by the facts. Hey wingnuts, how does it feel to have your former president and presidential candidate supported by Al Qaeda? Kinda puts a dent in one of your main talking points, doesn't it?